Originally posted by scottishinnzI am not sure what you mean by the 'concept of race'. It is a fact that a concept of race exists and although the popular demarcations are not very scientific, there is a genetic underpinning to it. Darwins mistake was to believe that particular races were superior - which was a popular opinion at the time and as you say is not that uncommon today.
As for Darwin believing in the concept of race, well, many still do.
It is also a fact that different races do have certain genetic advantages (I for example am more susceptible to sunburn than those of a darker skin).
The problems with eugenics are:
1. whoever carries it out tends to be biased as to what characteristics are favorable. (skin color actually has advantages / disadvantages depending on where you live on earth).
2. we probably don't know which genetic characteristics are best for us. Maybe it is best to let natural selection do its work.
3. it overlooks the right of the individual to reproduce (and in extreme versions to live).
4. eugenics based on race overlooks the fact that there is significantly more variation within races than between races. If we were to carry out eugenics wisely we would not look at skin color, hair color or eye color but rather intelligence, resistance to disease, longevity and physical fitness and we would almost certainly find good and bad of all of those in all races.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell it's possible that she believed. It is also possible that she was raped. Or that they both pretended to believe it. How old was she anyway? kids married young then.
No she wasn't, she wasn't a single mother. She was about to get married with her boyfriend. She didn't have sex with him, but she had sex with someone, else.
Jesus was born outside the marriage, with a father who came out of the plain air (she said). And her boyfriend believed her? Jeezus...
Forgive me if I am not shocked enough for your prudish Scandinavian morals (I'm joking now). Come on, if mothers of bastard children are good enough to marry the King of Norway, who are we to judge. Who are we to judge period.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou have it all wrong. According to the story Jesus was conceived (but nor born) outside marriage.
No she wasn't, she wasn't a single mother. She was about to get married with her boyfriend. She didn't have sex with him, but she had sex with someone, else.
Jesus was born outside the marriage, with a father who came out of the plain air (she said). And her boyfriend believed her? Jeezus...
Also we do not know whether or not she had sex with Joseph before marriage. I don't think the Bible tells us that.
We certainly don't know whether Joseph believed that Jesus was supernaturally (immaculately?) conceived. I find it unlikely as one would expect Joseph then to have been one of the disciples. There is certainly no good reason not to assume that Joseph was the father.
Originally posted by thymeNo no, I'm not judging her of having sex with unknown men, being unfaithful of her husband-to-be. Young naïve girls will always be young naïve girls. But, hey, building a religion out of that...?
Well it's possible that she believed. It is also possible that she was raped. Or that they both pretended to believe it. How old was she anyway? kids married young then.
Forgive me if I am not shocked enough for your prudish Scandinavian morals (I'm joking now). Come on, if mothers of bastard children are good enough to marry the King of Norway, who are we to judge. Who are we to judge period.
And what about Joseph, being of good breed from the Davids house and everything, and not knowing what was happening? Well, he is kind, anyway, standing up for her.
The catolish church conemn any man and any woman to have sex outside marriage. First you marry, then you have sex, they say. But the first women in ther beliefs are the one that did just that. Having a boyfriend, having sex. Not by her boyfriend, but with someone else. That's prime hypocracy.
The only way I can explain this is if she was raped by someone. Then everything makes sense. But, hey, to build a religion out of a rape...?
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell look how Scientology got started....
No no, I'm not judging her of having sex with unknown men, being unfaithful of her husband-to-be. Young naïve girls will always be young naïve girls. But, hey, building a religion out of that...?
And what about Joseph, being of good breed from the Davids house and everything, and not knowing what was happening? Well, he is kind, anyway, standing up for ...[text shortened]... raped by someone. Then everything makes sense. But, hey, to build a religion out of a rape...?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas
No no, I'm not judging her of having sex with unknown men, being unfaithful of her husband-to-be. Young naïve girls will always be young naïve girls. But, hey, building a religion out of that...?
How about this: None of us need to answer for who our biological fathers were. We are all Gods children.
Hell, my father was an insurance agent. Are you saying you want to hold that against me?
Actually the religion, as far as i am concerned, was built on Jesus' preachings, his tolerance of people who were on the outside of society, and the fact that he taught his followers to be kind to others. Just like Joseph was to Mary, if you want. And that when it got serious for him, he did not back out but was brave enough to stand by his words and sacrifice his life.
I know this is not what the Catholic church says, that is why the Catholic church tried to kill of the Protestants who based their religion on this etc etc, we know all that.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadDarwin knew that his findings WOULD spark a rift within the church. That is why he did not publish his works sooner than he did. After his passing, however, he has become involved in the controversy as can be seen in the film "Expelled".
What absolute nonsense.
Religion and science have had conflicts throughout history. Darwin was not particularly exceptional for being involved in one of those fights.
Darwin is not a particularly big hero to most atheists but he does seem to stand out as an anti-hero to many creationists. To me, Darwin stands with Newton, Einstein, Napier and many other ...[text shortened]... ns theory. I first heard about evolution and Darwin (as fact) from my parents - both Christians.
As for his theories being atheistic, I agree that they need not be. In fact, if I am not mistaken the Catholic church has embraced many of his theories.
Having said that, it is important to note that in the movie "Expelled" Dawkins was quoted as saying that once he got a hold of Darwins theory it caused him to reject God. You see, not everyone feels the way you and I do about his theories.
Originally posted by whodeyReligion has undoubtedly turned more away from religion by itself. The fact that one, or some, or many were turned away from religion by science only shows that those people were never convinced by religion in the first place.
Having said that, it is important to note that in the movie "Expelled" Dawkins was quoted as saying that once he got a hold of Darwins theory it caused him to reject God. You see, not everyone feels the way you and I do about his theories.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think your on to something there.
Religion has undoubtedly turned more away from religion by itself. The fact that one, or some, or many were turned away from religion by science only shows that those people were never convinced by religion in the first place.
You see, if we debate long enough we will undoubtidly agree at some point. 😉
Originally posted by whodeyI did not say he did not argue with the Church. I said he was hardly unique in that. Most scientists throughout history have argued with some aspect of religion. It is to be expected as they tend to be intelligent and religion is full of contradictions. Even if your particular version is true, you have to admit that every other version has issues and that any intelligent person would question some of them.
Darwin knew that his findings WOULD spark a rift within the church. That is why he did not publish his works sooner than he did. After his passing, however, he has become involved in the controversy as can be seen in the film "Expelled".
As for his theories being atheistic, I agree that they need not be. In fact, if I am not mistaken the Catholic church has embraced many of his theories.
I was brought up Anglican and even back in the 70s and 80s the Anglican Church had no problem with the theory of evolution as far as I know. It was taught to me as fact by my parents.
Having said that, it is important to note that in the movie "Expelled" Dawkins was quoted as saying that once he got a hold of Darwins theory it caused him to reject God. You see, not everyone feels the way you and I do about his theories.
Many people believe in God because they see 'the hand of God' in everything and cant see any other explanation for life. A lot of people remain someone agnostic because of this. Once they understand evolution however, they realize that there are other explanations.
You seem to see it as all about Darwin and see him as some sort of anti-hero figurehead of some great deception. I on the other hand see him simply as a great scientist who discovered (not invented) evolution. There are many other big names involved all the way from Mendel. Evolution is not a religion with the grand priest Darwin, it is a scientific theory that we can all understand and test for ourselves. If Darwin hadn't figured it out someone else would have. We don't credit Newton with making gravity. He wasn't even the first to figure out that things fall when you drop them. He is famous because he figured out more about how it worked and how to predict it accurately.
You seem to think that without Darwin this whole evolution thing would go away, and without Newton there would be no gravity.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have me all wrong, I never said evolution was or was not a deception, rather, I was merely pointing out some of Darwins views that concerned me. Specifically in the movie it points to some of Darwins comments that I have already brought up that could have been interpreted by the Nazis as influential in their ideologies. I also provided some quotes that seemed to indicate he was an opponent of Chrisitanity. Although Scotty pointed out that he may have merely been an opponent of the church because of their meddling in the arena of science, I have my doubts.
You seem to see it as all about Darwin and see him as some sort of anti-hero figurehead of some great deception. I on the other hand see him simply as a great scientist who discovered (not invented) evolution. There are many other big names involved all the way from Mendel. Evolution is not a religion with the grand priest Darwin, it is a scientific theory t ...[text shortened]... arwin this whole evolution thing would go away, and without Newton there would be no gravity.[/b]
To sum up, my only attempt here was to show that whether one delves into science or religion, one is always prone to interprative errors and bias. Also, morality plays a big part in both arenas and perhaps is the most important aspect to both.
Originally posted by whodeyFirst, Darwin had a degree in theology, so I doubt he was deeply antitheitical towards the church. He did realise the theological implications of his theory, since it effectively destroyed William Paley's watchmaker analogy (Darwin was apparently quite fond of Paley's writings as a young man). The argument from design, which is an unparsimonious /non-scientific argument (because if its reliance on the existence of something unverifiable), is unnecessary in Darwin's universe.
Also, morality plays a big part in both arenas and perhaps is the most important aspect to both.
Second, the truth, and facts (and therefore the body of scientific knowledge and method) is morality free. Facts are neither good nor bad. Good and bad, indeed, are subjective judgements. Rain is bad weather in England, but very good weather in desert areas. Science, therefore, as a body of knowledge, or even a method of study is neither intrinsically good or bad - it just is.
However, if you wish to discuss the implications for us applying that knowledge, then individual morality certainly has a role.